3.5 Belief-Driven Processes of Sensemaking
4.2.2 Cognitive Perspective on Learning
The cognitive perspective articulates learning as the acquisition of knowledge from the environment, storing it in the mind/memory and at a later stage these memories are recalled.
162 Understanding Learning source : http://www.tllg.unisa.edu.au/ extracted on 15th March 2015
163 Skinner 1953. Science and Human Behaviour: 87 - 93 164 Skinner 1953. Science and Human Behaviour: 98 165 Skinner 1953. Science and Human Behaviour: 78 166 Skinner 1953. Science and Human Behaviour: 96 167 Skinner 1953. Science and Human Behaviour: 96
According to this perspective learning takes place when new knowledge is acquired or existing knowledge is modified and stored in a systematic meaningful way. Cognitivists argue that human learning and behaviour are forged by human cognition and therefore should be separated from human behaviour. Learning involves the formation of mental representations of the aspects of a task and the discovery of how these elements are related to each other and to elements in the environment.
Vygotsky is arguably the father of the cognitivist perspective on learning. According to DeVries, Vygotsky’s theory was both informed and motivated by his political involvement and as such was not widely accessible to the West and beyond.168 Vygotsky’s theory
considered cognitive development as an ongoing process during the lifetime of an individual which can only be limited by external influences in the individual’s environment. According to this theory real learning takes place when new knowledge is internalised by the learner. The internalising process occurs when a learner gains control of what they have learnt and are able to integrate it in their actions.
Piaget is one of the pioneers of this school of thought. Piaget concluded that intelligence and learning are influenced by ideas, individual judgements and biological adaptations.169
Piaget’s theory was built on his studies of child cognitive development which he articulated as four stages of cognitive development. The stages are: biological maturation, experience with physical environment, experience with the social environment, and equilibration. According to him the equilibration stage plays a pivotal role in the theory as it provides an interface between cognition and the environment, mapping environmental realities onto the cognitive structure. The stages covered the maturity that a human goes through as they learn and discover new things. He argued that intelligence and/or learning develops objectivity through lived experiences.170 He further argues that human behaviourism is largely
influenced by human cognition and that learning new concepts is only possible at a
168 DeVries 2000. Vygotsky, Piaget and Education: A Reciprocal Assimilation of Theories and Education Practices: 3
169 Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development source : https://www.boundless.com/ extracted on 29th April 2015
170 DeVries 2000. Vygotsky, Piaget and Education: A Reciprocal Assimilation of Theories and Education Practices: 11
corresponding developmental stage.171 The key contribution from Piaget’s theory is that of
age/maturity consideration. In each of the stages he articulates the factors in the maturity of a learner and how at each stage they are able to respond to the learning stimuli.
Bruner is another major contributor to the cognitivist school of thought. His perspective was developed from a functional point of view.172 According to Bruner, knowledge can be
represented as enactive, iconic or symbolic. Enactive knowledge is action based, involves the manipulative effect of knowledge on the environment. Iconic and symbolic representations of knowledge involve the visualising of knowledge objects in the learner’s environment, enabling the learner to transfer the object into their thinking process. According to a General Teachers Council of England article Bruner’s theory argues that knowledge is transferred through the different states, from enactive to iconic and then to symbolic.173
Bradshaw summarises cognitive learning as involving the awareness of and taking in of information.174 According to Bradshaw, cognitive learning is focused on shaping and
development of perceptions and insights that introduce change in thought patterns and actions associated with them. She points out that the development of individual intellect involves active awareness of the individual’s own thinking and their ability to prioritise events.175 This
awareness and prioritisation eventually leads to conceptualisation and categorisation of acquired knowledge. Bradshaw further argues that individuals develop complex cognitive structures by comparing their existing frames of reference with newly acquired knowledge.176
According to her, having a clear understanding of what is already known is useful for the learner to transition into new or unknown situations or environments.
Based on the above theories and understanding, cognitivist approaches emphasise cognition as the vital ingredient in the learning process and emphasise that learning is categorised in different stages that can be attributed to the learner’s thinking process.
171 Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development source : https://www.boundless.com/ extracted on 29th April 2015
172 Research for Teachers Jerome Bruner's constructivist model and the spiral curriculum for teaching and learning: http://www.gtce.org.uk/ extracted on 15th May 2015
173 General Teaching Council for England. 2006. Research for Teachers.
http://www.gtce.org.uk/teachers/rft/bruner0506/ extracted on 15th October 2014.
174 Bradshaw 2007. Effective Learning: What Teachers Need to Know?: 3 175 Bradshaw 2007. Effective Learning: What Teachers Need to Know?: 4 176 Bradshaw 2007. Effective Learning: What Teachers Need to Know?: 4
4.3 Individual Learning
This thesis has discussed the broad perspectives on learning, highlighting characteristics of the two dominate articulations of learning theory. This section explores individual learning as a foundational step towards organisational learning. As discussed in 3.2.2 the cognitive perspective on learning suggests that learning is based on an individual’s mental models that have an effect one’s performance. This perspective further indicates that past experiences and collected knowledge affect what and how individuals learn in the future and how external environmental stimuli, such as information and experiences, are interpreted in the learning process. Section 3.2.1 also offers a useful perspective that suggests that individual behaviour is influenced by cues that emanate from the individual’s environment, triggering a desire to acquire or search for new information in areas related to the individual’s frames of reference which are associated with past experiences. This suggestion indicates that individual behaviour is on a continuum and changes to its path are very gradual. Similarly, the way knowledge as well as cues are interpreted in the cognitive process is greatly influenced by the individual’s constructed frame of reference, leading to individuals forming perceptions on different subjects.
What is common in both the cognitivist’s and behaviourist’s perspectives is that individual perceptions hold and drive the learning process by offering varying interpretations for incoming stimuli. Argyris et al. argue that individuals are agents for organisations to learn.177
They point out that organisational learning takes place when individuals in the organisation are confronted by a challenging situation or event and the onus is on them to interrogate the situation as representatives of the organisation.178 During the interrogation process they
constantly make reference to their perception of the desired outcome and their image of the organisation, if at any point the view of the actual result and that of their perception do not match they begin to negotiate their expectations against the actuals, in the process transforming the image of the organisation.179 One can deduce that an organisation matures as
its people learn and act on what they learn; therefore, in the process the organisation learns from the people’s behaviour within it.
177 Argyris et al. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective: 16 178 Argyris et al. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective: 16 179 Argyris et al. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective: 16
4.4 Role of Culture in Organisational Learning
Culture can be broadly defined as the shared and acceptable way people do things. Schein describes culture as a pattern of basic assumptions that are formulated, refined and articulated by communities as they deal with internal and external adaptation issues.180 Culture defines
acceptable parameters (norms) within which people who subscribe to a particular community or group can actively participate in the affairs of the group. According to Schein these parameters or norms would have been tried, tested and seen to be yielding desired outcomes for them to be widely adopted.181 Schein further argues that the adopted norms inform the
members of group on the correct way to perceive, think and feel in specific situations.
Culture in an organisation is then fundamentally based on a belief system that is shared throughout the entire organisation.182 According to Denison, organisational culture has many
dimensions that require a systematic value framework to explore. He presents the competing values framework to categorise organisational culture. This framework presents two different dimensions of categorising organisational culture, which include a dimension that deals with flexibility vs. control and the dimension that deals with activities that occur within or outside the organisation. The two dimensions are then combined to define four different types of organisational cultures: group, developmental, rational and hierarchical. According to Denison group culture is focused on the importance of flexibility and change to internal organisational structures. Developmental culture is focused on the importance of flexibility in how organisations are influenced by factors external to them. Rational culture is focused on the importance of control in dealing with external factors. And hierarchical culture is focused on stability of the internal structures of the organisation. Culture in an organisation is usually a composition of different orientations but one dominant orientation will always stand out. The competing values framework offers a good platform for understanding how organisational culture is positioned and also gives generic characteristics of the broad categories that exist. These categories essentially provide a blueprint of how the cultural landscape of shared values, beliefs, norms and practices are aligned in organisations. Culture becomes a key component of organisational learning as it indicates the alignment of the
180 Schein 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership: 18 181 Schein 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership: 74
organisation towards learning.183 According to Petrides when organisations embed learning
into their strategy for growth and survival then learning becomes incorporated in the culture of the organisation.184 Petrides, like Denison, acknowledges that flexibility, adaptability and
control all fall in the domain of organisational culture and forms part of an organisation’s strategy on learning and innovation. It is important to note the introduction of innovation at this stage because innovation, like learning, is tightly coupled with culture within an organisation.
Figure 9: The Competing Values Framework185
Parry et al. argue that there is a direct correlation between organisational culture and positive
183 Petrides 2002. Organizational Learning and the case for knowledge-based systems: 70 184 Petrides 2002. Organizational Learning and the case for knowledge-based systems: 77 185 Denison 1996. What is the difference between organizational culture and climate?
or desirable outcomes at an individual and organisational level.186 According to them, the
extent of satisfaction from the outcomes is influenced by the levels of support and promotion for learning and innovation in the culture itself. This requires deliberate formulation of policies that encourage and support easy sharing of knowledge and information at all levels of the organisation. Petrides points out that policy formulation creates an enabling environment for individuals to gain access to information that allows them to share their ideas in a safe environment.187 This enables individuals to broaden their capacity to act, change,
grow and influence organisational performance as well as adaptability to changing environments. This aspect of culture is important because change is one of the key attributes needed for organisational learning to be successful.
Škerlavaj et al. describe organisational learning culture as a set of norms and values focused on the performance of an organisation with emphasis on a development of a systematic approach to how knowledge is created, shared and commercialised. In Škerlavaj et al.’s description they assert that fostering a culture of learning in organisations is beneficial for both individual participants and the entire organisation as it taps into the idea potential that could otherwise would not have been surfaced.
This section has highlighted the significance of a learning culture for successful organisational learning. It has also explored the dimensions and types of cultures generally found in organisations. The next section discusses the concept of organisational learning. 4.5 Organisational Learning
Having explored the conceptual foundation and roles that learning and culture play in organisational learning, it is important to understand conceptually what is involved in organisational learning. This section explores the historical, conceptual and theoretical foundation of organisational learning.
The concept of organisational learning gained significance during the mid-20th century when learning was at the centre of most academic debates, in particular ones involving behaviourists and economists.188 These debates stemmed from a rise in economic models of
the firm in the early 20th century. Core to these debates was the idea that organisational
186 Parry et al. 2000. The New Zealand leadership survey: 10
187 Petrides 2002. Organizational Learning and the case for knowledge-based systems: 79 188 Schulz 2002. Organizational learning: The Blackwell companion to organizations: 415
decisions are uniquely determined by environmental constraints and not the organisation’s responses to those constraints.189 These type of debates gave rise to the number of
organisations as well as scholars who explored the notion of organisational learning. Many of these scholars have described organisational learning as a process that leverages retrospective events both within and outside the organisation in order to position the organisation competitively. Templeton et al. describe organisational learning as a collection of action- oriented traits that influence output in organisations.190 This description is important to the
understanding of organisational learning as it as it points out that organisational learning is not a “thing” but rather a collective of many processes.
During the 1970s Argyris et al. and Duncan et al. contributed to the organisational learning theory and can be considered as thought leaders of that era. According to Argyris et al. organisational learning can be described as a process that is collaborative in nature, involving individuals from both within and outside the organisation.191 This description is relevant for
understanding the role that individuals and experimentation play in organisations. Argyris et al. argued that an organisation learns through the individuals that are part of that organisation. Haho explores Duncan et al.’s contribution which, according to her, builds on Argyris et al.’s work. Duncan et al. describe organisational learning as a knowledge-intensive process that is used to develop action relationships and manage their effect on the environment.192 Argyris et
al. make a similar suggestion when they assert that organisational learning is a conscious process of acquisition of knowledge.193 In Duncan et al.’s theory organisational learning is
argued to be focused on the creation of knowledge which can be used to facilitate change in organisations.194 This leads to the understanding that organisations must be deliberate in their
policy formulation and enforcement of organisational learning strategy. Haho argues that organisations have choice to either to implement or not the ideas that are developed, and therefore organisational learning should not be seen only to address effectiveness and action
189 Schulz 2002. Organizational learning: The Blackwell companion to organizations: 417 190 Templeton et al. 2002. Development of a measure for organizational learning construct 191 Argyris et al. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective: 17
192 Duncan et al. 1979 as cited by Haho 2014. Learning enablers, learning outcomes, Learning paths, and their relationship in Organizational Learning and Change: 29
193 Argyris et al.1996. Organizational Learning 11: Theory, Methods and Practice. Reading: 20
194 Haho 2014. Learning enablers, learning outcomes, Learning paths, and their relationship in Organizational Learning and Change: 29
in organisations but also as a capacity building mechanism.195
The 1980s saw a spike in contributors to the organisational learning theory and for the purpose of this thesis only a few extracts from these scholars are presented. Levitt et al. are among the contributors in this area and their contribution focused on knowledge as both the driver and catalyst for learning in organisations and as such should be heavily embedded in the policies, practices and routines of an organisation.196 Levitt et al. argue that organisational
learning is fundamentally built on three classical observations drawn on their behavioural studies of organisations. In the first observation they argue that behaviour in organisations is surfaced through the routines which are characterised by different actions. They further argue that these actions are dependent on the individual’s logical interpretation of how appropriate the actions are depending on environmental variables.197 This simply asserts the importance
of individual learners in the organisation and that the sense individuals make of the routine ultimately determines how the learning culture is shaped, or the general behaviour of the organisation. In the second observation they point out that actions individuals carry out are “history-dependent”. They argue that retrospection plays an important role in routines and not the ability of individuals to anticipate the future.198 In the third observation they argue that
organisations are target oriented and as such organisational behaviour is shaped as they reconcile the actuals against their planned targets. To sum up the three observations they point out that organisations learn by encoding their interpretation of the past into routines, rules and procedures in order to guide their behaviour. Core to Levitt et al.’s conceptualisation of organisational learning is their view of organisational learning as being routine-based, history-dependent and targeted.199
Levinthal et al. also contributed a unique perspective during the 1980s. They presented a model that made provision for learning in organisations that takes place in situations of ambiguity.200 They argued that ambiguity has fundamentally two entry points. 201
195 Haho 2014. Learning enablers, learning outcomes, Learning paths, and their relationship in Organizational Learning and Change: 30
196 Levitt et al. 1988. Organizational learning. pp. 319–340. 197 Levitt et al. 1988. Organizational learning: 320
198 Levitt et al. 1988. Organizational learning: 320 199 Levitt et al. 1988. Organizational learning: 319
In organisations’ search for technology ambiguity is first presented when evaluating the effect of an adopted technology’s performance and when the technology is regarded as evolving.
Levinthal et al.’s theory factors in the rate at which individuals learn. They argue that this is important because signal or cue responses determine the sense that individuals make of a particular situation. They further argued that ambiguity allows individuals to provide varying interpretations to a situation that an organisation is faced with. Time also plays an important role in how people learn in an organisation, as over time the levels of ambiguity begin to subside, thereby offering more unique insights.202
Senge is credited to be one of the leading scholars of the 1990s that conceptualised organisational learning and/or learning organisations. According to Senge learning in organisations is facilitated by learning individuals and is dependent on individuals cultivating a shared vision as they complement their own skill set.203 He further argues that
organisational environment must be conducive for individuals to expand their capacity of creating desired outcomes and in the process pursue their aspirations freely.204 This according
to him accords people the opportunity to learn how to learn together with other people. Senge